Source please?
Looks like it’s from Les Chevaliers du Ciel, but I could be wrong.
Meh scenario, but God those air sequences…
Oh yes it’s from that and:
Enjoy.
2 Likes
That was incredible, but I don’t understand why the film had to have a plot. I would have happily watched jet fighters just flying around for two hours.
1 Like
3 Likes
Damn… every once in a while someone pulls this video out. 
2 Likes
This channel needs more subscribers:
2 Likes
Explaining how people go to space - using only the most common thousand English words. Er, ten-hundred most common…
3 Likes
Oh yeah, MinutePhysics is a great show to learn about science, incredibly didactic. They are one of the very few to manage to explain complicated, abstract elements in comprehensible ways for non-scientists.
I mean, I’ve stopped watching them after that one time they betrayed their viewers and everything they stand for and what Science means in the first place with a cackling travesty of an a scientific demonstration, but apart from that they’re great.
Never watched minute physics beyond the odd video. But that one was well worth my time. 
Out of curiosity…source?
2 Likes
Can you also link or give us the name of the clip?
To avoid derailing this more (I should have thought about that before, I know), let’s just say that it’s not a good idea, for talking about things like the meaning of the Universe, to use the words of a public scientist that declare philosophy obsolete and can’t even get theory from fact(*).
Feel free to PM me if you want more details, of course 
(*) a link to some awesomeness, to keep this on-topic
3 Likes
Interesting read.
I think a major issue (if not the primary issue on that topic) IMO that causes a lot of … other issues … is that science is a methodology, not an ideology.
That’s why it always bugs me when someone says “science can’t explain X”. Science can. Scientists have not yet.
3 Likes
To explain my post (not disagreeing with TA, just thought some clarification might be helpful). The scientific method is a methodology (clue in title). Meaning it’s a tool for a scientist to use to explain something. A tool such as a hammer in and of itself can’t hammer in nails, as it’s inanimate, and can’t act independently. It takes the carpenter to wield the hammer. The method by which the hammer is used also varies by the ideology of the carpenter: fast as possible, slow and steady, etc.
So I would say that science doesn’t and can’t explain or prove anything, only be USED to do so… Like the hammer, it would take someone to use the tool of science to explain things. The method by which the tool of science is used varies by the ideology of the scientist. Taking the example from the article, dark matter. All data interpreted by people who believe in dark matter is going to, with very few exceptions, be interpreted with the assumption that dark matter is a fact, whenever dark matter may somehow affect the interpretation of the data. The only exception to this is when they try to prove or disprove the theory of dark matter, in which case it comes down to the individual scientist’s integrity for giving the results, regardless of outcome.
The nail could be crooked.
That’s why it irritates me when the newspaper proudly exclaims: Science Proves This! What happens when that “This” is “proven” wrong? Is science suddenly in invalid, since it was used to disprove itself?!? I should hope not. And the clue is again in the title. The newspaper title. Science, by definition, is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. However, nowhere in their does it use the phrase “and proves something”. And nor should it, basically because science would instantly be worthless when it’s contradicted by itself. A cannot be non-A and A in the same reference in the same manner, the most basic of logical laws. Anything that proves that something is impossible, renders that something impossible, regardless of how many people wish really really hard for it not to be.
Therefore it’s not the scientific method that’s wrong, but the scientists that wield it.
That’s what I originally meant by calling science a methodology, and not an ideology. All too often “science” becomes a magic wand to convince the great unwashed to believe that scientists know what’s happening in the universe. Unfortunately, scientists can fall into this trap, thinking because they “did themselves some science”, they are in an unassailable position. This renders science as an “ideology”, because their ideas are equivalent without exception to science (which makes absolutely no sense by definition).
Methodology vs ideology, explain vs prove.
EDIT: clarified something. Science doesn’t explain or prove anything, only be used to explain/prove.
4 Likes
He did make a mistake with UFOs being real. Unidentified flying objects. Such as something flying into an air zone and the people monitoring the air zone don’t know what it is. that would be a UFO. Such as a bird, bat, lawnmower engine flying thingy, a chair with lots of balloons.
English, it matters.
1 Like